However, I was unaware, as Tibby seemed to imply in an earlier post that the charasmatics have split from Rome. Am I understanding him correctly?

Not that I'm aware of?? There are Charismatic Catholics within my town that are in full communion with Rome. I suspect some of those in Tibby's group are separated for reasons other than the charismatic element.

Yes, there are many Charismatic Roman Catholic. If you happen to get Charisma, look in the Editorials for this month. A few months back, some people wrote in letter claiming the Catholic faith isn’t a Christian Faith. To many people surprise, several Catholics wrote back. Not “disgruntled” Catholics, but full fledged Roman Catholics. I am sorry is I phrased it wrong, John. I never meant that.

Many denominations do except the usage and existence of the Charismatic Gifts as the work of God. Yet, even as the heads of the Denomination except it, the Churches that actively use them are few and far between. Mostly, I believe, of fear of Alienating members and baby Christians. On top of that, The ruling bodies of such organizations don’t always speak for the individual Pastors and Parishioners. Some churches that are official against the Charismatic movement have Churches that are active in such things.

On a side note, The CEC is not a splinter Catholic Church. You may be thinking “that is bull” but it is true. The CEC was raised up by people of many denominations, most of them not Catholic. Large Majority of the ones I have meet from other CEC Congregations either came from a Baptist or Charismatic back ground. The Patriarch was once a member of CI, in fact.

Anyways, keep up the good agruement, guys, it is an enjoyable read!

Cy/Wolv fight over Jean Grey
Rouge and Iceman relationship
Pyro's entry into the Dark side
Wolv's origin
Finding Nightcrawler

Just to name a few. The writers when to heavy on the sub-plots, cause the movie lose its general Focus. Other then that, it was an enjoyable movie. Not at all sitmulating, but entertianing.

I don't know, their was something missing. It seemed like the sub-plots over shadowed the main plotline to much. ANd their where WAY to many sub-plots!

Good lord, I leave for a few days, and I miss all the fun stuff! Thanks for Standing in Corpus, you made me proud   lol

One thing I would like to address:
Petro: You misunderstand what I said early. I am by no mean “disgruntled” by the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that I join another group (The CEC, as I said in the other post ) is because I are more comfortable with Charismatic teaches that I have grown up with. This group is not an Independent Catholic Church. I am very much against these Non-aliened Catholic Churches that keep popping up. As we all know “Catholic” means “Universal” I think by separating your self from all other Catholics, you undermind one of the core pillars of the Catholic system! The International Church Government is what makes Catholics Catholic! I am not an “independent” Catholic, my Patriarch just doesn’t live in Italy (He lives in California, as a matter of fact). The CEC has Bishops and diocese and even their own Branch of the Chaplin’s Corp in the US military! We have a website, if you wish to know more about us before you rant about “disassociated” Catholics.

Ollie: What I meant was what possible reason could you have for posting the definition of Communion up? I am truly sorry,  I should have been more clear. lol, I should have said it in the first place! Anyways, I see no point in posting the differencing, we are agreed on that part of it. Lol, just drop if, forget I said I thing. Sorry

Find Trinity in the Bible. Find internet in the bible. Is it found in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Or English? If not, then by your own logic, they aren’t words of God and we should not use then are consider them a possibility at all, right? Well? According to you:

A. transubstantiation not in bible
B. Therefore, transubstantiation must not be of God

Also according to you:

A. Trinity not in bible
B. Therefore, the Trinity must not be of God

Also by your logic:

A. Sunday Church not found in bible
B. Therefore,  meeting in a Church building on a Sunday is not of God.


Petro: It is getting late. Thanks for the detailed reply, and of course, I disagree with you , but you know how Monday mornings can be. I’ll try to reply to you later.

Let me just add that Jack Chick doesn’t have a clue that he is talking about. I’ve found with members of my own Church who used to pass out Chick Tracks. I’ve read most of what he has to say, and he takes things so out of context! Read some of Karl Keating writings. He is a Catholic Apologist who “converted” from the Baptist Domination, a group know for their hated of the Catholics (I know, I date one ). Other then that, I say again I would love to debate General Catholicism with you in an separate post. Just make a post listing a few of your best points against the Church. You seem like an intelligent guy.  lol, I guess it isn’t as late as I though. Let us take the general Jack Chick/MFCI debate to another post so to not clog up this one. I’ll post the rest of my reply to you tomorrow.

Thanks guys, it’s been fun,
Chris

lol, do you know easily this could turn into a war on semantics?

Christ died for us. Christ died for our sins. He died in our place so that we would never have to face the fires of hell and damnation, but spend our eternal life with him.

Here we go again. Strongs tells you the literal translation, my good man! What is wrong with that? Greek is so different from English, and words with the same denotation many times have different connotations. This is proven in the case of  “anamimnesko” for example. You must understand, Greek isn’t English Code, or English Greek Code. You can’t De-code a language. These are two totally different ways of speaking, different grammar, different punctuation, different accents, different vocabulary, different sentence structure. You can’t just look up the dictionary meaning of a word and know the full definition. The only way to do that is to learn Greek, or meet someone who does!

He spoke Aramaic, uh? Then why did he use Greek letters when saying “I am the Alpha and Omega” in Revelations?  Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and Hebrew, and yes, he did speak Greek as well. Like people in many land locked European country today, a man like Jesus would find it hard to speak only one language. He spoke several. I mena, till he was twelve, he lived in Egypt, did he not? In the bible, Jesus used Greek words, such as agape, gnosis and paraclete, to name a few (Look them up in your Strongs). Those words and others have no Hebrew or Aramaic counter-part, so he at least had to speak Greek some of the time. On top of that, the New Testament was written in Greek all Greek, so when we read what Jesus said, we are really reading the Greek translation, so to us, he might as well have been speaking Greek, because we don’t have it in Aramaic! Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic. But keep in mind, a large majority of the people in this world are multilingual.

I fail to see what the translation and definition of the word “Communion” has to do with anything?

Enjoy you Sunday, my friends. Hope Church fares well. Speaking of which, I must be heading in that direction.

Always a pleasure,
Chris

The most beautifull, Sancte Deus, composed by Thomas Tallis

Sancte Deus, sancte fortis,
sancte et immortalis, miserere nobis,
Nunc, Christ,
Te petimus miserere quaesumus,
qui venisti redimere perditos;
noli damnare redemptos,
quia  per crucem tuam
redemisti mundum.

The english translation is great, but you just don't get the same feeling singing it in English. Isn't Chanting just wonderful? So plain and basic, by at the same time, wonderful and beautiful!

Petro, please except my humble apology. I wasn’t very clear with the first argument. I was in a rush, and did not have time to read over it to see if everything was clear and correct. Anamimnesko is the Greek word that is translated in Remembrance in our bible. I hope that makes everything clearer for you now. It isn’t anything obscure or mystic, it is Greek, the same Greek Jesus Spoke.

Also, I was not irate. I apologies, again, if I can off that way. I believe seeing “Mission to Catholics” set something off in my head. Them, Jack Chick, and other so-called “Bible Christians” misinterpret the Roman Catholic Doctrine. Mind you, I am not ROMAN Catholic. I, after spend my first young years a Roman Catholic, and most all of my life a Charismatic, have recently joined a Catholic Denomination know as the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC). Keep in mind, the CEC in a new, young group, and have nothing to do with the United Episcopals. Anyways, my younger years as a Catholic and a strong Catholic Heritage (my father was the first of his familly to leave the Cathiloc faith for a Charismatic one, lol, and now he is back) has given my a bit of a biased again such groups. I can tell you, I have read many tracks and books from groups like the Mission for Catholics, and they seem to all have a large majority of their facts grossly incorrect. I have dealt of the mindsets Jack Chick and others have set into the minds of the Protestant Church. Do you know how hard it is to be a Protestant youth group member which Catholic back ground who tries correct his Youth Leader when he starts preaching the evils of “praying” to saints? But, I am ranting. I am sorry for anything I said that came off as irate or offended. If you would like to discuss you misgivings with Catholic Church, I would be happy to reply. Just open a new topic with your main grievances, and we can discuss them. Granted, I don’t agreed with the Catholic Church on everything either, so just keep that in mind. I look forward to replying to that post as well.

Anyways, but to the topic at hand. Your quote from the site, very good. A applude you for going to a Catholic site to support your argument, and for the great argument you are displaying. You must be a very intellectual person. I can already see it will be enjoyable talk to you, and, of course debate with you ! The link was messed up, but I did a search to find it. And I found that you had taken that entire phrase out of context! This isn’t talking about the real presence, but Perpetual Adoration. This is when members of a Parish, or other group, unite for a day of adoration before taking Communion. It would take much to long to explain here, do a web search for more details. No, there is no historic proof of this, you are correct. I don’t see anything sinful about, it just another way to Worship God, but it isn’t biblical at all. Just like using Pop music for Praise isn’t biblical! Anyways, I do not see how your quote doesn’t apply, because it isn’t even talking about Communion or the real presence, only the pre-Eucharistic events Catholics sometimes hold.

Again, I am truly sorry for not being so clear, and for coming off a bitter and irate. It was not my intention. I am fully aware of the fact I can sound very harsh, I just seem to get into debates, and forget about the main purpose, not to insult the other person, to convince them, or at least find a happy medium. So, please don’t take anything personally.


A pleasure debating,
Chris

John and Petro: I’m going to answer your posts in separate replies, so as not to confuse everything. I’ll start with John.

John, yeah, I love boxing. In injured my neck and had to stop fighting (until I recover ) but I love to watch! Ali, I here you, he was a great fighter. It was like poetry in motion watching him. Boxing wasn’t just a sport, it was an Art and Science for him. Now, on to the debate:

Actually, John, in your reply to my first point, your logic is flawed, for the apostles DID ask him about this. See chapter 6 of John. This takes place right after the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle, and Jesus’ waking on water. Jesus beings talking about drinking his blood and eating his flesh, then in John 6:61, he realizes this offended them (and I use the word “realize” loosely, because he no doubt knew stating this would have that effect). Then in John 6:66 (um… makes you think) he disciples left “and walked no more with him” as the NKJ puts it. He never corrected himself over this. His followers were abandoning him, and he never said anything to correct himself like he had done with Nicodemus. Sure, they made up a few verses later, but he still never corrected himself, now did he? When people get upset and he is speaking metaphorically, he always explains himself. But this case, he didn’t. Think about the time He said “You shall destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in 3 days!” in Mt 26:61?  He never corrected him self. We could have though it was metaphorical, but he never corrected him self, or explained it, and was that metaphorical? I think not!

You also address the Remembrance issue, which is a repeat of what Petro asked. Read my original reply to what Petro said for the answer.

Yes, you make good points and history. Granted, Origin didn’t exactly have the fullness of the word, and he was word on a few counts, I will give you that one. You also said the bible should stand alone, if the bible should stand alone, then why are we sitting hear arguing about the meaning of a few passage in the bible? If it stands alone, then we should be able to agree on this, without any doubt. And why are their millions of Commentary, and Companions, and Devotionals to help us with the bible? If the bible can stand alone, then why do we have those annoying inserts in those Study bibles that people read while your trying to teach!? lol, those thing are so distracting, don’t you agree? And they always say the thing you already know, lol. But I’m getting off on a Rabbit trail. The point is, if the bible was meant to stand alone, then why must they have all these books to read along with the bible!? I just think reading the writings of the guys who walked with Jesus and the guy that were taught by the guys that sat with Jesus on a daily basis! He started teaching as a young boy, if you recall. 20-25 years worth of teaching, put into 4 small books. Tell me there isn’t a part we are missing! I mean, there is a lot these guys didn’t write. Most of the four gospels that tell us what we know about him were written as letters, not full biographies! No, not all of the Apocrypha are good; some of them are down right heretical! But many of them are historically and theologically correct.


It is truly a pleasure debating you,
Chris

In Remembrance, very good. I’d like to praise you for bring this up and backing it with biblical Evidence. You’ve done some homework. Now it is time for the test  

Let us go into the Greek for more. Jesus didn’t speak English, after all! lol. The word in the Greek is anamimnesko. What is this? The word means much more then a psychological recollection! The word means “to be present again.” It is a representation. We don’t just mentally recall Christ death; we are taken back to the time he died in spiritual and physical since. Think about the thief on the cross next to Jesus when he asked Jesus “remember” him in Luke 23:42. Surely, he didn’t just mean for Jesus to think about him every once him a while in heaven, right? Are you going to tell me that he wasn’t asking to live again, to be present again?

It truly disturbed me that you choose to quote an argument by Missions to Catholics International Inc. They are both Fundamentalism and anti-catholic. They forsake all (even truth) for their cause, which is to discredit the Catholic belief system. If you want to talk about “mere men to support their own worldly agendas.” Then Missions to Catholics are the correct group to choose. Anyways, I had to address this. Pointing out you are quoting a biased group.

One of the Church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, had several things to say about the Eucharist. In a letter to the Philadelphians, he said “Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood.” In a letter to the Smyrnaeans, when referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God” he said “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raise up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” This is the early Church, we are talking of the first centuries here. There is more. Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Origen; all of them believed in the real presence of Christ. This quote you have posted by the Counsel of Trent is taking it way out of context. For you see, the word “Transubstantiation” wasn’t said until this time, but there is historical proof to validate the fact that the Early Church did follow the belief of the Real Presence. No, the Mission to Catholics is right, the Church didn’t refine the concepts and vocabulary of the Eucharist, but the idea of Transubstantiation has been there for ages.

I am really enjoying this. Thanks for the great debate! It is your turn, I believe. Have fun, my brothers in Christ.  


Chris

I'm glad to know we have so much in common. What sports do you like to watch? See I have found a good forum. Please, I'd love to debate this topic. Why do I feel in the transubstantiation is correct? Well, why don't you? I will go first, make a few points that are the mian reasons i real this way. These are not the only reasons, just the 2 main ones:
1. Jesus said so. Yes, it is that simple. Many times, when he said something that people misunderstood, he explained it to them. Case in point, on the roof top, Jesus said something about being born again, and Nicodemus was like "Come on, you can't mean a man can go into his mothers womb again?"and jesus corrected him, and explaned what he meant(John 3:1-15)But, in John 6:51-56, Jesus states five times that "whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" and never said "Oh, by the way, I'm just kidding!" or "Yeah, it is just a poor choice of words, like with the born again thing!"
2. The Early Church said so. Hey, these are the guys that spent years walking with Jesus, and the guys who where taugh by them! They beleived in the real presence. The idea of it being anything other then Transubstantiation didn't come along until Ulrich Zwingli in the 1500's! He's theory: if the bible (both Old and New Testament) did not say something explicitly and literally, then no Christian should believe or practice it. This would mean the Trinity is wrong, church buildings are wrong, modern music in church is wrong, and hey, since the bible doesn't talk about the World Wide Web, this fourm isn't of God!
Well, your turn. Why do you believe what you do about the Eucharist? Time for your two cents.

Hello. I’m new here. I want to open up with a debate me and a few of my friends have been having for a few week, perhaps start a dialog on it. I was wondering, in Communion, do believe it becomes the blood and body, or it is the essence, or is it purely symbolic, or what, and why? As for me, I’m Transubstantiationist.